Wednesday Highlights

So, recently in my attempt to back in shape, I’m trying swimming, which is new to me. I’m really (repeat) really slow (to put it pointedly, there are pool meet records posted on the wall, I can’t beat the times posted by “under 8 y/o girls” yet) … and I can’t swim very far before being winded. But I’m improving. I think I need to grow lats before the slow thing can be really solved.

  1. Not liking the Obamacare thing, the uninsured.
  2. Vulnerable?
  3. Yes, but to be honest, you have to give the Admin a bit of a break there. Those other Presidents didn’t have their projects done by no-bid contracts with their buddies company.
  4. The President’s commission reviewed the NSA procedures and made recommendations .. and he spoke as well. Remarks on that here, here and here.
  5. Ohio moves against homeschooling.
  6. Of course you can talk about it (see liberals think if you can’t talk about it, then it is evidence of bigotry).
  7. In which “a great idea” means take a bad thing and make it even worse.
  8. Make sure you are not drinking anything near a keyboard when reading this headline.
  9. Apparently athletic ability no longer a criteria in politically correct land.  After all, we wouldn’t want to judge people on ability or character …. just the color of their skin or the group to which they adhere.
  10. But I guess once you truly embrace the stupid you can’t stop.

 

8 responses to “Wednesday Highlights

  1. You’re off the mark w/ #9. As the article itself mentions, past delegations have included the president. Presumably he wasn’t selected on the basis of his athletic ability. So there’s no precedent being broken here other than that the president isn’t part of the delegation whereas, in years past, he would have been. Other non-athlete members:

    The Honorable Janet A. Napolitano, President of the University of California, will lead the delegation.
    The Honorable Michael A. McFaul, United States Ambassador to the Russian Federation.
    The Honorable Robert L. Nabors, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy.

    King, for her part, is a member of the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports and Nutrition, so it doesn’t seem that nutty for her to be part of the U.S. delegation to an international sporting event.

  2. Mr Howard,

    “Delegation” is that the athletes competing or the stuffed shirts watching? I took it to be the former. If the latter, then my objection is withdrawn as I misunderstood, as I find that largely irrelevant. I took “those we are sending” to be our competitors.

  3. It’s confusing. I think its used interchangeably to refer to either the set of athletes who are actually competing in events -or- the entire group of people we’re sending to the games in any “official” capacity. Obviously Napolitano (and Billie Jean King) aren’t competing in an event, nor were past U.S. presidents when they attended the games. I think they’re still included in the phrase “U.S. delegation”, though, if they’re sent in any official capacity.

  4. Mr Howard,
    In general I have a distaste for using unrelated agenda (sex, “gender”, or race) as a criteria when choosing for “things” (things like: employment, school, delegations, political office) that are unrelated to the actual work/purpose for which you are being selected. In part it is a symmetry thing, those who figure sexual attraction or race is appropriate to be as a selection criteria … then equally one might argue that in that or similar circumstance it should be also a valid criteria for exclusion. So if you think being Black or Gay or female is a criteria for school or office then I would be equally righteous in arguing it just as valid in excluding that person on the same basis. Which for me, is the best argument that these unrelated criteria should not be relevant. So, if you want to pick people to represent us in winter athletics, then your sexual preference should not a consideration. If it is, then you should be OK with another President using that as a criteria to not send those persons.

  5. I’m okay with the president filling entirely ceremonial roles with specific persons in order to serve a political agenda. In this case, communicating to Russia the United States’ disapproval of its recent crackdown on homosexuals without saying that explicitly. If the games were being held in Iran I’d have no qualms with the president adding a Jew and a Muslim convert to Christianity.

  6. In general I have a distaste for using unrelated agenda (sex, “gender”, or race) as a criteria when choosing for “things”…

    You seem to have adopted a 1980ish liberal view of things. This is best satarized IMO by Stephen Colbert who likes to tell guests he is ‘color blind’, even saying things like “people say I’m white, but I don’t know since I don’t see color”.

    Anyway, there’s a long history of using delegations and other ‘official’ visitors as a way to ‘thumb our nose at’ repressive regimes. During the 80’s, for example, there was a movement to appoint a black ambassador to South Africa. If Saudi Arabia ever had an Olympics (which of course they couldn’t but if they did), I would have no problem with a President selecting a group of Gays, Jews, and Christians and women to express our disapproval of the way they repress freedom there. Likewise why can’t Mark simply admit Russia’s law is oppressive and wrong and while it doesn’t merit war it does merit visible displays of disgust?

    And if you accept that then these criteria are hardly ‘unrelated’ to our agenda.

  7. Boonton,

    This is best satarized IMO by Stephen Colbert who likes to tell guests he is ‘color blind’, even saying things like “people say I’m white, but I don’t know since I don’t see color”.

    You do realize that because a thing can be satirized that means … it only that it exists as a concept.

    You seem to have adopted a 1980ish liberal view of things.

    Nope. I’m taking a 1960s view of things. You apparently decide that you want to take a 1840s point of view and judge people in other ways.

    This is again a “engage in conversation” fail instance. If you actually wanted to move past the kindergarten state rhetoric phase and actually wished to talk about marriage, demographics and sex and marriage in (mostly) Orthodox Russia .. this isn’t the way to do it.

    And, btw, I said I didn’t care what stuffed shirts they send. I was just appalled at the notion that athletes were being selected based on their sexual preference and not athletic ability.

  8. This is again a “engage in conversation” fail instance. If you actually wanted to move past the kindergarten state rhetoric phase and actually wished to talk about marriage, demographics and sex and marriage in (mostly) Orthodox Russia .. this isn’t the way to do it.

    Who wants to talk about sex and marriage in Orthodox Russia? Who cares what the Russian Orthodox Church has to say about anything? I don’t. Is anyone making the Russian Orthodox Church get special licenses from the gov’t to speak its mind about religion? But the Russian Orthodox Church has aligned with Russia’s gov’t to force other Christian denominations and non-Christian groups to apply for ‘license’ to speak their minds. Likewise Russia has a law that says people cannot advocate gay rights. How exactly is it then, that you conclude it’s those who support gay rights that are ‘failing’ to ‘engage in conversation’. If you want to engage me in conversation, you can start by not threatening me with jail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>